Ukraine: Who’s Going to be Terrorists This Time Around? | New Eastern Outlook

In fact, I do not know how to refer to it. On the one hand, I see my countryman fellow Tomasz Maciejczuk: Open Dialogue foundation volunteer that runs along the east of Ukraine distributing warm clothes for Ukrainian army – because it happens that they walk in erasers in the freezing weather. After a few seconds, I switch on the profile of Graham Phillips British, journalist reporting from Donetsk. And what I see: the body of disrupted children lying on the snow, the elderly, women, people who on their way to the store had been bombed by the Ukrainian artillery. Then I switch over to Maciejczuk facebook page and see how happy he is with the fact that he can help Ukrainians in their fight against ‘terrorists’ in eastern Ukraine, and how bravely he is echoed by others of my compatriots. Who support him because of ‘patriotic’ reasons. They support him with good word and urge for further work against Bolshevism, communists and imperial Putin.

Everything is going well: there are money for warm boots and jackets for Ukrainians; is going to continue ‘divine’ mission to help fight against ‘terrorists’.

Again, look at the profile of Graham, this time a video: a burning house of a pensioner. Grandfather shows how the bullet just killed his wife. I see that there is very cold because he has a red face from the cold or from vodka. Perhaps he had to kill despair over the loss of loved ones. He stands in the house. Although the ‘house’ is the wrong word now – rather hole after a bomb in the house. I wonder what will happen next to him and I do not know. I think I do not even want to think about it.

I switch over to Mr Maciejczuk, he is smiling and he makes pictures with the Ukrainian soldiers on the front who thank him for the equipment.

I switch over to Graham … no longer switch. Enough.

This is the war in real time. I discovered it during the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Live streaming of pacification – after all it was all about ‘terrorists ‘there too. Sit in a chair, if you have a projector, switch on the big picture on the wall, turn on the volume and taste war. Only thing missing is the smell and touch to satisfy all your senses. The picture and sound is almost the same. The only thing missing is creaking snow under your feet, the smell of burning and fear. Well, after all, instead you can drink wine and watch how ‘good people’ kill ‘bad people’. You can do it, until someone will decide that you are ‘terrorist’ and will point GRAD at your house.

If not Patrick Lancaster, Graham Philips and several other journalists, probably no one would find out that the narrative of Mr Maciejczuk and other defenders of ‘democracy’ and the fight against ‘terrorism’ is not entirely in line with reality. Without these journalists, it would not be a problem to burn down New Russia. Although, from what I know, SBU is increasingly interested in the ‘freedom of speech’ in Donbas. Here is an excerpt of the text that in this context, journalist Patrick Lancaster posted on his Facebook:

Just spoke to a colleague and friend. He told me he was arrested by the Ukraine army and turned over to the Ukraine secret service, SBU. They told him that Patrick Lancaster and Graham Phillips are wanted criminals and that he needed to supply them with information about us when he refused they beat and interrogated him for a for over 10 hours then put him out in the cold weather with little clothing. We are Journalists and are being targeted for putting out the facts that we see. I will not let this hold me back I will strive to bring all the facts I can to the public. Maybe by doing this I can save at least one civilian life.

Complete story at - Ukraine: Who’s Going to be Terrorists This Time Around? | New Eastern Outlook

M of A - Masha Gessen Is A Fact-Challenged "State Propaganda Agent"

Anti-Russia propagandist Marsha Gessen is a pet of neocons with regular space in Fred Hiatt's funny pages. Whenever she writes about Russia she gets, like the U.S. president, nearly every fact wrong. It is almost as if she has opinions and then creates facts to argue that her opinions are right and the only possible ones to have.

Ohh - the paragraph above is prejudice and slander?

But Gessen now confirms that she, in her own words, is not a journalist but a "state propaganda agent". She also confirms (again) that the facts she uses never cross the realm of reality.

Yesterday Mahsa Gessen stormed out of the taping of a radio show as she was upset about the professional background of one of the participants of the show. Explaining herself Gessen wrote:

The reason was that after a detailed preliminary discussion on topics and possible guests, the lineup had nothing in common with what was discussed and included a woman who was identified as a "Russian-American journalist." Neither the host nor the producers seemed to know anything about her - except that until earlier this yea she had worked for the Kremlin propaganda holding Russia Today and now is flogging a book supposedly critical of Putin. I have not read the book, but I do know that people who work for Russia Today are not journalists.
...
I tried to explain to [the producer] that my problem is not with a difference of opinion - it's with the misrepresentation inherent in calling state propaganda agents journalists.

So if people who work for state sponsored media, like Russia Today, are not journalists but "state propaganda agents" what then is Masha Gessen?

In September 2012, Gessen was appointed as director of the Russian Service for Radio Liberty, a U.S. government funded broadcaster based in Prague.

Complete story at - M of A - Masha Gessen Is A Fact-Challenged "State Propaganda Agent"

What Really Went Wrong at First Look Media | The Smirking Chimp

Just over one year ago, billionaire eBay cofounder Pierre Omidyar issued one of the most dramatic announcements America’s beleaguered journalists had experienced in their lifetimes. After decades of closing newspapers, shrinking newsrooms, vanishing foreign bureaus and the near extinction of investigative reporting due to brutal, relentless budget-cutting, Omidyar would endow a new company, First Look Media, with a staggeringly large sum of cash – $250 million – to be deployed in the service of a breathtakingly ambitious attempt to reinvent advocacy journalism in everything from investigations of financial corruption to sports coverage.

Even better, from the standpoint of progressives living in the political wilderness since the rise and fall of George McGovern, First Look Media would be edited by leftist pundits and advocacy journalists like the legal columnist Glenn Greenwald, to whom former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked more than a million classified US government documents, the documentarian Laura Poitras, also involved intimately in the Snowdon saga, and the respected anti-militarism critic Jeremy Scahill.

As some cynics opined, it all sounded too good to be true. (Disclosure: for just shy of a month earlier this year, I worked for Pando Daily.) Why would a billionaire like Omidyar bankroll a bunch of antiestablishment types like the financial reporter Matt Taibbi – hired away from Rolling Stone – whose mission in life is in large part to undermine global capitalism?

Although it’s too soon to declare First Look dead and gone, and Omidyar claims to be as committed to his utopian company as ever, things have gone from bad to worse over the last year. Omidyar’s $250 million pledge shrunk to $50 million. The mission to fund hard-hitting journalism and commentary was recast as, among other things, possibly a “platform” expected to generate significant revenue. Tales of shrinking budgets, diminished expectations, shrinking ambitions and staffers leaving after complaining of managerial incompetence appeared with increasing frequency in the trade press.

From the outside, it quickly became clear that First Look was less than a well-oiled machine, or even a reasonably functional journalistic startup. Fellow writers and cartoonists who responded to First Look’s repeated calls for resumes (disclosure: I was one of them) described treatment ranging from unprofessional snubbing of award-winning pros to outright rude, such as going silent after asking them to come in for an interview.

Complete story at - What Really Went Wrong at First Look Media | The Smirking Chimp

Ukrainian parliament approves very dangerous draft law on first reading - Reporters Without Borders

NoBC4U Note: Well at least one nefarious act by the Kiev Junta got the attention of journalists!

It would allow the government to close media and block websites on national security grounds without a court’s permission

Reporters Without Borders condemns the draconian restrictions on freedom of information envisaged in a draft law that the Ukrainian parliament approved on first reading today.

If adopted, the proposed law would allow the National Security and Defence Council (RNBO) to suppress the dissemination of any national or international media or block any website on the grounds of protecting “security and national interests” without referring to a court.

The sanctions envisaged by the bill – whose second reading is scheduled for later today – include “limiting or banning the activity of media or other sources of information, including on the Internet” and “banning the production or dissemination of any printed product or other informational content.”

It also says “the broadcasting of television or radio stations” and “the use of Ukrainian broadcast frequencies” can be banned.

Drafted by the government, Draft Law No. 4453 was only registered with parliament on 8 August, four days before today’s first reading. Its laconic impact study tersely says: “The bill does not require consultation with civil society.”

Neither parliament’s freedom of expression committee nor any of the working groups created with media and NGO representatives was consulted.

“This bill’s definitive adoption would represent a major setback for freedom of information in Ukraine,” said Johann Bihr, the head of the Reporters Without Borders Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk. “It gives the RNBO exorbitant powers to order the broadest forms of censorship on the basis of extremely vague criteria and with no safeguards.

Complete story at - Ukrainian parliament approves very dangerous draft law on first reading - Reporters Without Borders

Ethical Bias - Worlds Apart on RT

The Vineyard of the Saker: Ukie hunt on Russian journalists and the possibility of war

It is no secret that the junta in Kiev hates the Russian media. This is hardly surprising considering that with a few extraordinarily rare exceptions, the western press corps walks in lockstep with Psaki's narrative about this war. So Russian journalists have been beating up, kidnapped, searched, detained, tortured and, of course, murdered. And just in case anybody would still hold on to the belief that this policy is the result of the action of a "few bad apples" (the use the Pentagon's favorite expression), I want to mention two interesting developments here:

1) The Ukie "Rada" is in the process of passing a law removing the press accreditations of pretty much the entire Russian press corps in the Ukraine.
2) The Ukie secret police - the SBU - has now issued a directive ordering the attest of 80 people including several of the best known journalist currently reporting from the warzone.

And this all makes perfect sense. Since the Russians are the only reporters courageous enough to report from places like Slaviansk and Kramatorsk and since they are the only ones honest enough to say the truth about the atrocities committed daily in Novorossia, getting rid of them (by means of murder or kidnapping) will basically remove Novorossia from the world's "media radar".

I am generally not a big fan of the modern press corps (where I have too many friends to have any illusions about how it really works), but I have to express my deep admiration for the absolutely fantastic work the Russian journalists do in Novorossia and, by the way, in Syria. And while I am sure that the Ukie threats and the death of their colleagues will not stop the Russian journalists of continuing to report from Novorossia, I only feel total disgust and contempt with western media whose indifference towards its Russian colleagues is absolute.

Can you imagine the kind of atrocities the Ukie death-squads would engage in if they succeeded in getting rid of the only real journalists reporting from the warzone?

In the meantime, while Poroshenko has announced that Banderastan will sign the association agreement with the EU, Russia is apparently moving some of its military forces closer to the Ukrainian border. Whether this is again a hallucination by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen or not, I am quite sure that a Russian military intervention is imminent and that short of a miracle Putin will have to take action to protect the population of Novorossia.

Will a Russian liberation of Novorossia trigger a war with NATO?

Probably not.

Complete story at - The Vineyard of the Saker: Ukie hunt on Russian journalists and the possibility of war

Journalist and civic activist abducted and killed in Kyiv :: khpg.org.ua

NoBC4U Note: The Kharkov Human Rights Protection Group is a group that was highly critical of human rights abuses under the former Yanukovich regime. It's good to see that they do show some concern about human rights abuses by the new government and it's supporters. Sadly, when the cover war related crimes and abuses in the East of Ukraine, Novorossiya, they generally use a lot of anti-Russian terminology, seemingly not understanding that their choice of words is a big part of the problem. So like they say, a broken clock is correct two times a day. Except a digital one...

The publication Kamenyar-info has reported that their journalist, Volodymyr Martsyshevsky was abducted on June 11 from the Maidan Press Centre in Kyiv by men in camouflage. He was found later that evening in the Bereznyaki district. He had been savagely beaten, with damage caused to his lungs and 8 ribs fractured.

His colleagues told Telekritika that he was still conscious but could not tell them anything about those who abductor and beat him.

Volodymyr Martsyshevsky died on Saturday morning, June 14. He was a civic activist who was involved in defending Hostyny Dvir, a landmark building in the very centre of Kyiv which the previous regime removed from the list of monuments under State protection (more details here: khpg.org )

He took part in the Orange Revolution as well as the protests in 2012 over a highly contentious language law. He was a member of the Union of Inventors and Innovators and other civic organizations, and a major of the ‘Ukrainian Register Cossacks’ [a civic organization.

Complete story at - Journalist and civic activist abducted and killed in Kyiv :: khpg.org.ua

Journalism Without Guts - In These Times

When I went into journalism, one of the first things I was told as a freshman is that journalism is different from stenography. It is supposed to be—or at least has been—about using rights granted under the First Amendment to be a check on government and corporate power.

Yet, the hedge in that last sentence is deliberate—and appropriate. That's because a new survey from the Indiana University suggests things are fast changing in the news industry—and not for the better.

The latest in 42 years worth of surveys of journalists, this one polled more than 1,000 reporters in the latter half of 2013. That timeframe is significant—it was right when revelations about the NSA’s mass surveillance were being published.

You might think such an historic time period in the annals of journalism would only strengthen reporters’ belief in the necessity of responsibly—but fearlessly—publishing information, even if the powers that be do not authorize such publication. Instead, it seems the exact opposite has happened.

Complete story at - Journalism Without Guts - In These Times

How the press soft-pedaled Hitler — JNS.org

Ever get the feeling that history repeats? Moderate Nazis in the 1930s; moderate Nazis in Ukraine 2014.

A ‘moderate’ Hitler?

Relatively little was known in America about Hitler, and many leading newspapers predicted that the Nazis would not turn out to be as bad as some feared.

An editorial in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin on Jan. 30 claimed that “there have been indications of moderation” on Hitler’s part. The editors of the Cleveland Press, on Jan. 31, asserted that the “appointment of Hitler as German chancellor may not be such a threat to world peace as it appears at first blush.”

Officials of the Roosevelt administration were quoted in the press as saying they “had faith that Hitler would act with moderation compared to the extremist agitation [i]n his recent election campaigning... [They] based this belief on past events showing that so-called ‘radical’ groups usually moderated, once in power.”

A wave of terror

In the weeks following, however, events on the ground contradicted those optimistic forecasts. Outbursts of anti-Jewish violence were tolerated, and often encouraged and assisted, by the Nazi regime.

In early March, for example, the Chicago Tribune published an eyewitness account of “bands of Nazis throughout Germany carr[ying] out wholesale raids to intimidate the opposition, particularly the Jews.” Victims were “hit over the heads with blackjacks, dragged out of their homes in night clothes and otherwise molested,” with many Jews “taken off to jail and put to work in a concentration camp.”

Complete story at - How the press soft-pedaled Hitler — JNS.org

The 4th Media » Evidence for Russian Involvement in East Ukraine Based on CORPORATE MEDIA’s Shoddy Journalism

WORONCZUK: So, Robert, The New York Times reported that the Ukrainian government had proof that Russian soldiers were behind the takeover of government buildings in Eastern Ukraine. They released these photos to prove that Russia was behind these takeovers despite Russia’s denial of involvement. Now The Times is backpedaling and saying that the photographs they printed were coming under scrutiny. What do you think is the significance of their retraction?

PARRY: Well, it’s always interesting when The New York Times goes with a front page story, a lead piece on Monday citing these photographs as evidence, the sort of slam dunk evidence that Russian troops had gone into Ukraine and were essentially instigating this uprising in these ten cities in Eastern Ukraine. The New York Times presented these photographs but apparently never really checked them out.

The photographs themselves really didn’t prove much. They basically–even if you were to accept them at face value, there are other explanations for why people might be in one place or another beyond the fact that they were sent there by the Kremlin.

But as it turned out, a key photograph that The Times used, one a group photograph which The Times claimed had been taken in Russia, and then these same–some of the same fighters show up in Eastern Ukraine, that was presented as a key piece of evidence that these folks were from Russia and were participating in the Eastern Ukrainian uprising. But it turned out that the photograph was actually taken by a freelance photographer in Eastern Ukraine. So the whole basis of The Times’ story collapses, because these folks were not photographed in Russia, they were photographed in Eastern Ukraine. And that’s what The Times was forced to retract today.

Complete story at - The 4th Media » Evidence for Russian Involvement in East Ukraine Based on CORPORATE MEDIA’s Shoddy Journalism

‘Shield’-ing the People from Independent Journalism | Foreign Policy Journal

Currently being debated by the Senate, but rarely discussed on mainstream television, is the Shield Law. While on the surface it may seem to be rather innocuous, some of the language in it and its implications are quite problematic for journalists.

A Shield Law is a law which “provides statutory protection for the ‘reporters’ privilege’— legal rules which protect journalists against the government requiring them to reveal confidential sources or other information.”[1] Generally, this is a positive occurrence as journalists are much more able to conduct their work and bring information to public light if they do not need to worry about having to reveal their sources. While Shield Laws have occurred in the past, they have only been on the state level. This currently proposed Shield Law is the first one to reach the federal level, and the main goal is to protect journalists from having to reveal confidential sources in federal cases.[2]

However, there are certain instances in which journalists will have to reveal sources, such as “(1) The party seeking disclosure has exhausted all reasonable alternative sources of the information; (2) The requested information is essential to resolving the matter; (3) Disclosure of the requested information would not be contrary to the public interest; and (4) In criminal cases, if the requesting party is the federal government, the government must show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred.”[3]

While overall it may seem like a good bill, there are a number of problems with this Shield Law, officially known as the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013. For starters, this law would “allow the government to seize reporters’ records without notifying them for 45 days – a period of time that could be renewed by a judge 45 additional days – if investigators convince a judge pre-notification ‘would pose a clear and substantial threat to the integrity of a criminal investigation.’”[4] This power of seizing records without notifying reporters was used most recently in regards to the Associated Press, when the federal government seized their phone records in May of last year, with the government only saying that “they were needed for investigation of an unspecified criminal matter.”[5] Oh yes! What transparency and accountability! Infringing upon the First Amendment rights of reporters and then only giving what is essentially a BS, purposefully vague explanation.

Complete story at - ‘Shield’-ing the People from Independent Journalism | Foreign Policy Journal